• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

** EXPOSED : A Blatent LIE by O'Mara told to the court

ric27 said:
What evidence have you shown to prove that Z's comments "are proven to be impossible and/or utterly implausible".....

Unless you can come up *credible evidence* to fill in your notions of guilt with facts in evidence... then, the veracity of Z's testimony is maintained

Starting a sentence with "Either" makes you unsure. You certainly have doubts

Why would you send a man to prison based on doubts?
Click to expand...

You're not answering the questions... I guess I shouldn't expect you to.
 
Tettsuo said:
You're not answering the questions... I guess I shouldn't expect you to.
Click to expand...
He did answer.
He provided the only reasonable answer to your questions, because what you assert has not been shown.

For example:
Why is it that even when his comments are proven to be impossible and/or utterly implausible, you still hold fast to his narrative?
They haven't been shown to be utterly implausible or impossible. That's why.

Either the fight could not have taken place where Zimmerman claimed it did, or his claim that Martin clocked him, causing him to fall and Martin jumped on top of him immediately is a lie. Which is it?
Wrong. That's why!
Everyone knows that folks jusyt don't fall straight down unless knocked out. They stumble when falling to the ground after being hit.
Stop with your absurdities. It happened as he stated.

Either Martin somehow wiped all of Zimmerman's DNA off of him before getting shot and wore gloves or the fight wasn't the beatdown Zimmerman claimed it was (a dozen of undefended punches).
Wrong again. That's why. You have yet to show that ™'s would have gotten DNA on him at all.
Partly because you can not show when Zimmerman started bleeding.
I think your belief of such, is called CSI syndrome. Or the CSI effect.

Zimmerman lied about looking for an address. He was looking for Martin.
No, he didn't.

Zimmerman had two small lacerations on his head. That's not inconsistent with blunt trauma.
:doh
His laceration are consistent with getting hit by something harder. Which Dale Gilbreath confirmed under oath.
What you also don't seem to realize, is that Zimmerman would have been resisting the downward force which would have lightened the impacts.
And Zimmerman did have multiple impact abrasions, bruising and swelling besides those two lacerations.​
 
Tettsuo said:
You're not answering the questions... I guess I shouldn't expect you to.
Click to expand...

I'll hazard a guess and say....

You give Z less than a 50-50...Z did it

Correct?
 
Paperview said:
O'Mara lies so much, I'm almost half-inclined to believe him when he says he's making up a fact.


From jury selection last week

Ex-PJ E81 -- @ about 16:54 minutes of GEORGE ZIMMERMAN JURY SELECTION 6.13.13 PT. 6 (FIREWORKS PRO GUN JUROR) - YouTube

O’Mara: If for example—and, again, I’m going to make up a fact here—if, for example, you were to find out that for some reason George Zimmerman was not supposed to have a weapon; that he was not lawfully carrying the weapon—and the judge said that is a problem. Would you consider that a problem, too?

​
Click to expand...

I actually saw some speculation about this on another board based on the supposed fact that Shellie had her CCW revoked when she was charged with perjury, while Zimmerman apparently didn't, with the accusation being that he was holding her gun that night and wasn't legally carrying.

I have to admit that so far I haven't seen any documentation supporting that, but it's weird that O'Mara would bring that up, considering the chatter.

At this point I'd rate it highly unlikely that he was carrying illegally and we wouldn't know about it. Wouldn't they have charged him with an illegal use of a firearm?
 
AlfredENeuman said:
I actually saw some speculation about this on another board based on the supposed fact that Shellie had her CCW revoked when she was charged with perjury, while Zimmerman apparently didn't, with the accusation being that he was holding her gun that night and wasn't legally carrying.

I have to admit that so far I haven't seen any documentation supporting that, but it's weird that O'Mara would bring that up, considering the chatter.

At this point I'd rate it highly unlikely that he was carrying illegally and we wouldn't know about it. Wouldn't they have charged him with an illegal use of a firearm?
Click to expand...

I've seen similar things, and it was indeed Shellie's gun he was carrying, still I have seen nothing to convince he wasn't carrying legally.

That would be a hoot though if we found out he was.

Judge Lester: "The evidence against him is strong."
 
AlfredENeuman said:
I actually saw some speculation about this on another board based on the supposed fact that Shellie had her CCW revoked when she was charged with perjury, while Zimmerman apparently didn't, with the accusation being that he was holding her gun that night and wasn't legally carrying.

I have to admit that so far I haven't seen any documentation supporting that, but it's weird that O'Mara would bring that up, considering the chatter.

At this point I'd rate it highly unlikely that he was carrying illegally and we wouldn't know about it. Wouldn't they have charged him with an illegal use of a firearm?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter who's gun George was carrying as log as he had a CCW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom